User talk:Tomruen/uniform polychoron

Coxeter Regular Polytopes &sec;7.6 (p.131 of the Dover edition) says: "...obvious fact that the symmetry group of the one-dimensional polytope {} has order N₀=2."
In the top table, I'd number the columns the other way around: t_k has a vertex, not a cell, at the center of the k-dimensional element.

—Tamfang 18:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced prism notation as t{2,p} - used and justified in the 1954 paper, and I'm satisfied it is better, even if {2,p}, a dihedral polyhedron, is degenerate for 3-space.
On "numbering" columns (0,1,2,3 point subscripts), you may be right, at least I have to think! Feel free to change this table in Schläfli_symbol#Extended_for_uniform_polychora_and_3-space_honeycombs as you believe correct.

Tom Ruen 23:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entries for Coxeter-Stott and Johnson are around the wrong way. Stott's notation is to use e_n for each of the expand operators. Since this is the notation that ultimately comes through wythoff to Coxeter as t_a,b... The notation by Johnson is to use appreviations of his names, eg rr=runcinated. My page on the Coxeter-stott notation is wrong, but i have not re-edited that part of the pages as yet.

You could include Conway's notation, since the Conway-Hart notation comes from treating every polytope as regular. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wendy. This table was pretty old. The uniform polytope articles now just use the "t"-notation (without explanation) and Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams. Currently I'm working on uniform polychoron/honeycombs vertex figures, tables at User:Tomruen/polychoron_verf. Still correcting errors if you see any. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]